Delete items

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses major behavioral details: trashed items keep attachments, trash auto-empties after 30 days, permanent deletion cascades to child notes and attachments, removes files from disk, and 'cannot be undone by anything.' This is exactly the kind of beyond-annotation context that prevents misuse.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the primary behavior appears in the first sentence, followed by reversible/irreversible nuance and side effects. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of schema or annotation fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema, full parameter schema coverage, and annotations, the description covers all decision-relevant context: default behavior, permanent behavior, side effects, recovery path, and automatic cleanup. Nothing important is missing for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra context for the permanent parameter, explaining the real-world consequences of irreversible deletion and the 50-item limit, which goes slightly beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action: 'Move up to 50 items to Zotero's trash' and contrasts it with the irreversible alternative. It clearly identifies the resource (items) and distinguishes itself from restoration-related siblings like zotero_restore_items.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly explains that trashing is the default and reversible, and gives a precise condition for using permanent:true: 'only when the user has explicitly asked for an irreversible delete.' It also names zotero_restore_items as the restoration path, giving the agent clear routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.